STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. SHEILA DAVALLOO
(SC 19416)
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Argued October 14, 2015—officially released January 12, 2016
Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and Robinson, Js.
******************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the
******************************************************
Opinion
ROGERS, C. J. This certified appeal addresses the scope of the marital communications privilege codified in
The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history are relevant to the defendant‘s claim.2 This case involves a love triangle that took a deadly turn. The defendant became infatuated with Nelson Sessler, her coworker at Purdue Pharma, Inc., a pharmaceutical company in Stamford. State v. Davalloo, supra, 153 Conn. App. 421. The victim, Anna Lisa Raymundo, also was a fellow Purdue Pharma, Inc., employee and the third member of the love triangle. Id. In late 2000, Sessler met Raymundo at an after work happy hour and, in the summer of 2001, Sessler met the defendant for the first time at another after work happy hour. The defendant told Sessler that she was divorced, although she was still married to Christos. Sessler began separate sexual relationships with both the defendant and Raymundo. Id.
During their relationship, the defendant and Sessler would rendezvous periodically at the defendant and Christos’ condominium unit in Pleasantville, New York. Before Sessler would visit, the defendant would tell Christos that her mentally ill brother was coming over and that Christos should leave and take his belongings with
In the summer of 2002, Sessler focused his attentions on Raymundo, and the two became a couple. Id. Even though Sessler maintained his separate apartment in Stamford, “he spent the majority of [his] time at Raymundo‘s apartment, located at 123 Harbor Drive, apartment 105, in Stamford. . . . Sessler‘s relationship with Raymundo continued after Raymundo left Purdue Pharma [Inc.] in 2002 and began a new job at another pharmaceutical company, Pharmacia, in New Jersey. Despite working in New Jersey, Raymundo continued to live at her apartment in Stamford.” Id.
Also in 2002, the defendant concocted a story about a love triangle among three fictional coworkers at Purdue Pharma, Inc.: “Melissa,” “Jack,” and “Anna Lisa.” Id. Nearly every day, she recounted the tale to Christos from the perspective of her purported friend “Melissa.” Id. In actuality, “Melissa” was the defendant; “Jack” was Sessler; and “Anna Lisa” was Raymundo. Id. The defendant told Christos intimate details about Melissa and Jack including that Melissa was upset when Jack rebuffed her sexual advances. Id., 422-23. Additionally, “[s]he once said that Melissa had discovered Jack‘s travel plans and had flown to Jack‘s destination. She then conveniently ran into him at the airport as he was boarding a plane home and sat next to him on the return flight.3 The defendant constantly asked Christos for advice ‘on behalf’ of Melissa with questions such as why Jack was in a relationship with two women and why Jack was cheating on one woman with the other. Christos listened to these stories to ‘humor’ the defendant.
“Eventually, the defendant told Christos that she ‘wanted to go on a stakeout’ with Melissa in order to ‘spy on Jack.’ Although Christos thought the proposed surveillance was ‘a little odd,’ he did not believe it would actually occur; he gave the defendant a pair of night vision binoculars. The defendant told Christos that she had purchased a lock pick set for Melissa because Melissa wanted to break into Anna Lisa‘s apartment to look at photographs in order to ‘get a sense of the relationship between Jack and Anna Lisa.’ The defendant practiced with the lock pick set on the front door of their Pleasantville condominium unit. The defendant also asked Christos for an eavesdropping device that she knew he owned in order to assist Melissa in planting the device in Jack‘s office so they could listen in on his conversations. Early one morning, the defendant telephoned Christos to inform him that she and Melissa were outside Anna Lisa‘s apartment and asked Christos if Melissa should confront Anna Lisa. Christos told the defendant that Anna Lisa had a ‘right to know her boyfriend is cheating on her . . . .’ In time, Christos became ‘sick’ of the stories of the love triangle and ‘. . . got angry’ with the defendant.
“The defendant also related the story of the love triangle to Emilio Mei and Tammy Mei, friends of the defendant and Christos, to Christos’ parents and to ‘one or two other friends as well.’ The defendant told Tammy Mei about Melissa ‘[a]lmost every time [they] spoke’ and would ask her questions such as whether
“A few minutes after noon on November 8, 2002, the Stamford Police Department received a 911 call in which the caller reported that a man was assaulting someone at 123 Harborview, apartment 105; the caller claimed to be a neighbor [but was later identified at trial as the defendant]. The dispatcher knew that Harborview was a commercial area without apartments and knew the given address had to be incorrect. After the caller ended the call, the dispatcher called back the number and discovered that the call had come from a pay phone at a Dutchess restaurant on Shippan Avenue in Stamford. The dispatcher telephoned the Dutchess restaurant and spoke to a manager, who had not noticed anyone at the pay phone. The dispatcher sent officers to 123 Harbor Drive, apartment 105, which she knew was a residential facility near the Dutchess restaurant.
“An officer knocked on the door of apartment 105 and received no answer. He pushed the door open and saw the deceased victim, Raymundo, on the floor of the front foyer. The officers saw no signs of forced entry, burglary, or ransacking. [Raymundo] had died from multiple stab wounds and her injuries indicated a violent struggle.
“In the course of [the] investigation, officers found details whose relevance later became apparent. At 11:57 a.m. [on the day of the murder, Raymundo‘s] home telephone had been used to place a call to Sessler‘s office; Sessler had not answered the call and no voice message had been left. Officers discovered a bloodstain on the handle of a bathroom sink, which suggested that the assailant had tried to clean up after the crime. The bloodstain much later was determined to contain ‘all of the different genetic elements that [were] present’ in the DNA profiles of both the defendant and [Raymundo]. The state‘s expert testified that due to the fact that [Raymundo] cleaned her apartment regularly, as testified to by Sessler and [Raymundo‘s] parents, and the fact that the sink handle was nonporous, it was ‘extremely, extraordinarily unlikely’ that any DNA left by the defendant on the sink handle prior to November 8, 2002, would have lasted or remained ‘very long . . . .’ ” (Footnotes altered.) Id., 423-25. Additionally, Christos noticed one day in late November, 2002, that the defendant came home from work with a “‘nasty cut‘” on her thumb. Id., 426. She explained to Christos that she had cut her thumb opening a can of dog food for their two dogs. Id.
“When Sessler returned after work to [Raymundo‘s] apartment, where he frequently stayed, police officers questioned him. Sessler gave officers the names of two other women he dated who suffered from mental illnesses. He did not at that time tell police officers about his overlapping
“After [Raymundo‘s] death, the defendant pursued Sessler. She sent him a care package, consoled him, and was one of the few people willing to talk to Sessler about Raymundo at a time when most people ‘. . . shunned him.’ In January, 2003, the defendant invited Sessler to go on a group ski trip. The ‘group’ turned out to be only Sessler and the defendant. Sessler again entered into a sexual relationship with the defendant. The defendant would invite Sessler to her residence, but, again, only after having first told Christos that her mentally ill brother was visiting.” Id., 425-26.
“As part of his work, on November 13, 2002, Christos had a meeting with representatives from Pharmacia, where Anna Lisa had worked. The representatives mentioned that a colleague of theirs had been recently murdered. Although a name was not mentioned, Christos began to wonder if Melissa did something to Anna Lisa. Christos mentioned to the defendant that an employee at Pharmacia had been killed and asked whether Melissa was involved and if Anna Lisa was ‘okay. . . .’ The defendant did not seem shocked or surprised and responded, without elaboration, that Anna Lisa was ‘fine.’ Christos testified at trial that he believed that, at that point, the defendant thought that he had made that connection. In late 2002, the defendant reported to Christos that Jack and Anna Lisa had ‘broken up’ and that Melissa and Jack were together exclusively. But also in late 2002, the defendant asked Christos for information about fingerprints and DNA.
“On December 8, 2002, during dinner, the defendant also asked Emilio Mei and Tammy Mei about DNA and fingerprints, and questioned whether ‘they have everybody‘s DNA on file.’ In early 2003, Tammy Mei noticed that, although the defendant continued to talk about Jack and Melissa, she had not spoken about Anna Lisa in a while. Tammy Mei asked the defendant about Anna Lisa, and the defendant responded that Jack and Melissa were a happy couple; Anna Lisa had moved to New Jersey because she had obtained a job there.
“In 2003, the frequency of trysts at the Pleasantville condominium—under the guise, so far as the defendant told Christos, of her mentally ill brother‘s visiting—increased. Christos was [frustrated with] . . . leaving when the defendant‘s ‘brother’ visited and told the defendant that her brother ‘ha[d] to be told that [they were] married.’
“On March 22, 2003, the defendant described a guessing game to Christos. The game involved one person‘s being handcuffed and blindfolded while the other placed objects against the bound person‘s skin; the bound person was to guess the identity of the object. The following day, the defendant asked Christos if he wanted to play the guessing game. The defendant was the first to be bound and blindfolded. She guessed various household items.
“Then it was Christos’ turn. He lay on the floor, blindfolded and handcuffed to a chair. Christos guessed various common household items. The defendant then went to the kitchen to retrieve ‘one last item . . . to guess.’ She sat on Christos’ midsection and touched the item to his face; Christos guessed the item was a candle. The item was a knife. The defendant thrust the knife into Christos’ chest, paused and then again thrust the knife into Christos’ chest. The defendant said,
“Christos asked the defendant to call 911. He heard the defendant seem to make a 911 call, but, after a significant amount of time had passed, no ambulance arrived. Christos asked the defendant to call 911 again and he asked to talk to the operator. The defendant told Christos that the operator did not want to talk to him, but rather wanted him to lie on the floor. The defendant at this point instead telephoned Sessler and invited him over to the condominium for dinner.
“Eventually, Christos, still conscious, asked the defendant to take him to a nearby hospital, and the defendant obliged. She drove slowly, according to Christos, and parked in the rear of the Behavioral Health Center of Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla, New York. The defendant got out of the car and opened the rear driver‘s side door. Christos thought the defendant was going to help him out of the car until he saw an angry expression on her face and saw her lunge at him with the knife. Christos managed to get out of the car and attempted to wrestle the knife out of the defendant‘s hands. The melee moved to a grassy spot in the parking lot, while Christos visibly was bleeding through his shirt. The defendant begged Christos to ‘stay with me, talk to me . . . .’ Christos broke free, ran about 200 feet, and yelled to a medical resident and another person, who were near the entrance to the Behavioral Health Center. The resident called 911. The defendant asked the resident to let her take Christos to the emergency room. The resident refused. The defendant was arrested, in New York, for attempted murder in connection with this incident.
“When Sessler arrived at the defendant‘s condominium for dinner, he found police officers searching the residence. Police officers informed him that there had been a domestic dispute and that Christos was in a hospital. Later, after reading an article in a newspaper about the stabbing, Sessler contacted the Stamford police and informed them that they should consider the defendant to be a suspect in the death of Raymundo. Eventually, Sessler told officers about his concurrent affairs with the defendant and Raymundo. Days after Christos’ stabbing, the Stamford police contacted Christos about the death of Raymundo. Christos gave the officers several written statements and the defendant‘s phone records.” Id., 426-29.
Christos survived his injuries and testified in the Connecticut jury trial of the defendant for the murder of Raymundo. Id., 429. Prior to trial, however, the defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent Christos’ testimony on the basis of the marital communications privilege. Id. The state also filed a motion in limine, requesting a determination that certain statements between the former spouses were admissible. Id. The testimony at issue dealt with the defendant‘s statements and actions during the course of the marriage pertaining to the relevant events.5
After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of murder in violation of
On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant argued that her statements to Christos were improperly admitted by the trial court in violation of the marital communications privilege6 because the trial court had inquired into the quality of the marriage, contrary to this court‘s holding in State v. Christian, 267 Conn. 710, 841 A.2d 1158 (2004), and because the communications at issue, which pertained to personal matters, fell within the statutory parameters of the privilege. State v. Davalloo, supra, 153 Conn. App. 433-34. The Appellate Court disagreed, concluding that the trial court properly had focused on the nature of the communications, and not the quality of the marriage. Id., 434. According to the Appellate Court, “[t]he [defendant‘s] statements quite clearly were meant to deceive Christos, so that he would leave the marital home and her affair with Sessler would be enabled,
The defendant claims that the Appellate Court, in holding that the marital communications privilege was inapplicable, misconstrued
As a preliminary matter, we address the proper standard of review. “The scope of an evidentiary privilege is a question of law, which we review de novo. . . . The application of the privilege presents a mixed question of law and fact.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Mark R., 300 Conn. 590, 597, 17 A.3d 1 (2011). Thus, “[t]he scope of our appellate review depends upon the proper characterization of the rulings made by the trial court. To the extent that the trial court has made findings of fact, our review is limited to deciding whether such findings were clearly erroneous. When, however, the trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary and we must decide whether its conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Christian, supra, 267 Conn. 732-33. “[B]ecause testimonial privileges prevent full disclosure of the truth, they are to be strictly construed.” State v. Mark R., supra, 598.
To the extent that our review requires us to interpret
On appeal, the parties do not dispute the underlying facts regarding what the defendant told Christos, but only the question of whether, given those facts, the marital communications privilege should have applied. Because our review concerns the scope of the privilege based on an interpretation of
We begin our analysis with a review of the development of the marital communications privilege under Connecticut law. In State v. Christian, supra, 267 Conn. 730, this court recognized, for the first time, the existence of the marital communications privilege as part of Connecticut‘s common law.9 In that case, the defendant was involved in a fatal automobile accident that killed an occupant of a car in which the defendant was riding. Thereafter, while in the hospital, the defendant quietly confided in his wife, when no others were present, that
he, rather than the deceased individual, had been the driver of the car. Id., 722. At trial, the defendant sought to prevent his wife from testifying about this communication. During voir dire, the defendant‘s wife conveyed that she and the defendant were separated and in the process of divorcing, that the marriage “‘was very rocky’ ” at the time of the accident, and that, because the marriage was “over,” preserving the confidentiality of the defendant‘s statement would not repair it. Id. Relying on this testimony, the trial court ruled that the privilege, to the extent it existed, did not apply, even though the communications were private and occurred during a valid marriage, because that “marriage irretrievably had broken down.” Id., 723.
On appeal, this court confirmed that the marital communications privilege, which we previously had alluded to, was in fact “a fixture of our common law.” Id., 730. We determined that a marital communication is privileged if (1) the communication was made to a spouse during a valid marriage and (2) the communication was confidential. Id., 731-32. We ultimately concluded that the trial court improperly had refused application of the privilege on the basis of the acrimonious state of the parties’ marriage because that marriage, at the time of the communications, nevertheless was intact. Id., 735. Accordingly the first requirement was satisfied.
In formally adopting the privilege, we explained the well recognized principles underlying it: “The basis of the immunity given to communications between [spouses] is the protection of marital confidences, regarded as so essential to the preservation of the marriage relationship as to
After Christian was decided, the legislature codified the privilege by enacting
defines “confidential communications” as “any oral or written communication made between spouses during a marriage that is intended to be confidential and is induced by the affection, confidence, loyalty and integrity of the marital relationship.”
“We ordinarily do not read statutes so as to render parts of them superfluous or meaningless.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 269 Conn. 10, 37, 848 A.2d 418 (2004); see State v. Drupals, 306 Conn. 149, 159, 49 A.3d 962 (2012) (“[s]tatutes must be construed, if possible, such that no clause, sentence or word shall be superfluous, void or insignificant” [internal quotation marks omitted]). Section 54-84b (a) provides the common-law elements that the communication must be made between spouses during a marriage and be intended to be confidential;10 see State v. Christian, supra, 267 Conn. 710; but then adds the “induced by the affection” language, which is not found in the Connecticut common law, in the conjunctive. See State v. Davalloo, supra, 153 Conn. App. 433. Thus, the plain language of the statute compels us to view the “induced by the affection” requirement as a separate element that limits the privilege to those confidential communications made between spouses in a valid marriage that are “induced by the affection, confidence, loyalty and integrity of the marital relationship.”11
To aid in our analysis we look to the language of the statute. The word “induce” means “to bring on or bring about” or, alternatively, to “cause . . . .” Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary (2002). Accordingly, the statements must be “brought about” or “caused” by the affection, confidence, loyalty and integrity of the marital relationship. It therefore follows that if the statements are instead influenced by precisely the opposite, they would not qualify. The language of the statute, read as a whole, clearly contemplates one spouse confiding personal information truthfully in the other due to the special trust existing between the two, and not to the active concealment of a secret, nefarious undertaking designed to destroy the marriage.
In the present case, there are three categories of statements the trial court identified: (1) “‘statements made to the run-up of the murder of [Raymundo],‘” including the “‘description of a faux triangle‘“; (2) “‘[s]tatements after the death of Raymundo to accom-
modate the relationship with Sessler‘“; and (3) “‘statements leading up to and relative to the attack and attempted murder of [Christos].‘”12 State v. Davalloo, supra, 153 Conn. App. 430. As for the statements made during the period immediately preceding the murder of Raymundo, all of them were meant to deceive the defendant‘s spouse by being dishonest about her “brother‘s visits,” the real actors in the faux love triangle, and the reasons she requested items from Christos. The statements after the death of Raymundo were meant not only to deceive and further her obsessive relationship with Sessler, but also to conceal her involvement in Raymundo‘s death. Finally, with regard to the statements leading up to the defendant‘s attempted murder of Christos, it is self-evident that her violence against her
Because the defendant‘s purpose in making the statements at issue was to further her extramarital affair with Sessler and to ultimately eliminate, by murdering, both Raymundo and Christos, whom she perceived as obstacles to that affair,14 we agree with the determination by the trial court and the Appellate Court that the statements at issue here do not fall within the language of
The defendant argues that the trial court and the Appellate Court wrongfully looked at the state of the defendant‘s marriage, contrary to our holding in Christian.16 We make short work of this argument because the Appellate Court explicitly
communications fall well outside the marital communications privilege.
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.